ArticleThe American journal of the medical sciences2022
Self-administered, remote assessment of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in health care workers.
Article in The American journal of the medical sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOur objective was to safely and remotely assess longitudinal SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence in at-risk health care workers at the onset of the epidemic.
methodsSelf-administered serologic testing was performed every 30 days up to 5 times using a point-of-care, lateral flow SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid IgG immunoassay in a cohort of at-risk health care workers (n = 339) and lower-risk controls (n = 100).
resultsSubjects were enrolled between 4/14/20-5/6/20 and most were clinicians (41%) or nurses (27%). Of 20 subjects who reported confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection prior to (n = 5, 1%) or during the study (n = 15, 3%), half (10/20) were seropositive. Five additional subjects were seropositive and did not report documented infection. Estimated infection rates in health care workers did not differ from concurrent community rates.
conclusionsThis remotely conducted, contact-free study did not identify serologic evidence of widespread occupational SARS-CoV-2 infection in health care workers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.